Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Bit Parts
Accounting-Malpractice Claim/Arbitration
The Court of Appeal of California, Second District, Division 5, decided that an arbitration provision in a retainer agreement for an accounting firm to represent Kathlynn Federici in a divorce from her husband Danny Federici, keyboardist for Bruce Springsteen's E Street Band, barred her malpractice suit against the firm. Federici v. Gursey Schneider & Co. LLP, B183945. The plaintiff had hired Gursey Schneider to determine the value of the couple's separate and community property. Kathlynn later concluded that the marital settlement was unfair to her and sued the accountants for professional negligence. But the court of appeal explained that 'an unambiguous provision in Gursey's retainer agreement required, as a prerequisite to any future malpractice action, that plaintiff raise existing professional negligence claims as an affirmative defense in any fee-related arbitration with Gursey ' so that any such damages would be offset against Gursey's fees ' and only if that remedy failed to compensate plaintiff for all of her negligence damages could she pursue further relief through a separate litigation.'
Contributory and Vicarious Copyright Infringement/Interlocutory Appeal
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied a motion under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) for an interlocutory (ie, expedited) appeal by the operators of a flea market found on summary-judgment to be contributorily and vicariously liable for copyright infringement for running a 'pirate bazaar.' Arista Records Inc. v. Flea World Inc., 03-2670 (JBS). An interlocutory ap-peal may be granted where there is a controlling question of law. But the district court noted in part: 'Defendants take issue with Court's application of the legal standard to the facts of this case (ie, applying the requirements for secondary liability to the owners and operators of a flea market where vendors sell counterfeit CDs and cassettes). Section 1292(b), however, may not be invoked to obtain review of whether a trial court properly applied the law to the facts.
Copyright Infringement/Substantial Similarity
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?